When the president surrounds himself with children while giving his announcement that reasonable gun control measures are necessary, bear in mind that those ‘assault rifles‘ the government is sure to be going after were not even used in the Newton, Connecticut elementary shooting. As NBC admits in the video above, four handguns were used to carry out that despicable atrocity. This directly contradicts other reports.

Pete Williams, who is NBC’s chief Justice correspondent, reported the following in the video posted above:

Quote:

This continues to be a very complex investigation and there is a lot of contradictory information out there, but we have some new information this morning (one month ago) from a couple of federal officials and state officials.

They say now that there were actually four handguns inside the school, not just two as we were initially told. Four handguns and apparently only handguns that were taken into the school.

We knew that Adam Lanza, the man said to be the gunman here, also had an ‘assault-style’ AR-15 -style rifle that he had had taken to the school, it was in the car he drove there, his mother’s car, but we have been told by several officials that he had left that in the car.

The correspondent makes it clear over and over again that he confirmed this information with federal and state officials. Now, a lot of media reports contradict this one, but somebody’s lying. The report that an ‘AR-15-style’ assault rifle was in the trunk of murderer Adam Lanza’s car is up for dispute as well. If one examines footage from police breaking into Lanza’s car, one sees police clearing a round from a “long gun of some type” that does not appear to be ‘AR-15 style’ or ‘assault-style.’

Whether or not the mainstream media are intentionally spreading disinformation about the Sandy Hook elementary tragedy, there is one thing for certain: not only are violent crime rates at a modern low and going down, but only 323 homicides were committed by rifles in 2011. That includes hunting rifles, assault rifles, military style rifles, semi-automatic rifles and whatever label one comes up with, regardless of magazine or clip capacity.

In a nation of 311 million people, the odds of being killed by a rifle is about one homicide per million people, which is far less than the odds of being murdered by a blunt object. But we don’t hear the media arguing about regulating hammers and clubs. Again, when 99.7% of registered gun owners are law-abiding, gun control is not about guns, it’s about control.

_________________Always do the opposite of what SJWs say.

Obama played the race card. Hillary played the woman card. America played the Trump card.

when 99.7% of registered gun owners are law-abiding, gun control is not about guns, it’s about control.

++

Awesome!

That's why the Ministry of Truth has re-branded their effort to disarm the sheeple as "Gun Safety".

"Gun Safety" is actually one of the two primary things the NRA does: teaching gun safety and marksmanship (not that any anti-gun nuts would know this; as far as they know it's just some evil lobby for the evil who don't understand that guns r bad m'kay) which is why that's funny.

It's just like, as we and the French now invade Mali, we don't have a "Global War on Terror" going on any more -- Obama stopped that -- we just have "Overseas Contingency Operations". And, we don't put people in Guantanamo any more because that's not humane (now we just kill them, which is nice and tidy and doesn't leave any legal challenges, such as questions as to whether or not they were guilty).

when 99.7% of registered gun owners are law-abiding, gun control is not about guns, it’s about control.

++

Awesome!

I am not worried about the 99.7% of registered law abiding gun owners. it's the 100% of criminal gun owners I am interested in.

You, me, and any thinking person. But the only way to handle a "criminal gun owner" is with a "law-abiding gun owner" -- which honestly in both cases I think should be reduced to "gun handler" because honestly ownership isn't critical but handling is. I just don't agree that the solution is to have fewer "law-abiding gun handlers" than "criminal gun handlers" like so many other people are._________________

when 99.7% of registered gun owners are law-abiding, gun control is not about guns, it’s about control.

++

Awesome!

I am not worried about the 99.7% of registered law abiding gun owners. it's the 100% of criminal gun owners I am interested in.

You, me, and any thinking person. But the only way to handle a "criminal gun owner" is with a "law-abiding gun owner" -- which honestly in both cases I think should be reduced to "gun handler" because honestly ownership isn't critical but handling is. I just don't agree that the solution is to have fewer "law-abiding gun handlers" than "criminal gun handlers" like so many other people are.

That's because the only people for whom that makes logical sense are government authoritarians seeking to solidify the state monopoly on use of force, and the moronic lemmings who swallow their propaganda and populist demagoguery.

That's because the only people for whom that makes logical sense are government authoritarians seeking to solidify the state monopoly on use of force, and the moronic lemmings who swallow their propaganda and populist demagoguery.

But even if we take every word you say as fact, which I assure you I do not do as a practice, then we have to either decide that the Government is so overly confident in it's ability to control those "criminal gun handlers" or that they have no desire or intention of maintaining order and would prefer the "criminal gun handlers" to be in charge. Because there are so many guns "in the wild" in the US that no amount of authoritarian control can round up all the guns, IMO.

[Edit] Removed odd "not" in the middle of a sentence it had no business being in. [/Edit]_________________

Their reasoning would be that a massive and well-funded, well-informed, well-armed police force would be capable of controlling armed criminals. Ever hear about any "school shootings", or similar massacres perpetrated by disillusioned individuals, in the USSR, East Germany, etc.? Hear about a lot of bank robberies in China, Vietnam, etc.?

Tbh, when I was in US, I was more afraid of paranoid government officials and Monsanto food, than I was of people with guns. Shit I even walked unknowingly through wrong parts of Oakland and Richmond, and while I did notice the change of atmosphere, nothing happened.

It's not like people walk on streets with holsters and demand duels on streets.

Last edited by Prenj on Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:06 pm; edited 1 time in total

It's not like people walk on streets with holsters and demand duels on streets.

Texas?

Haven't been in Texas, but I doubt it

You might see it remote parts of Texas where people live on big ranches a hundred miles from civilization. I lived there for a while and the only sign of it really is the signs required by law on liquor-serving establishments that say guns are not allowed.

It's not as dangerous as drinking and driving, but guns and booze don't mix well.